Those parts are at idle. The only part drawing any extra power during LinX is the CPU. So you can roughly see how much power the CPU is drawing after comparing the idle to load numbers exactly as he did.

Those parts are NOT at idle, get it right.

The VRMs have an efficiency of a 92-93% at most on super high end motherboards. In most cases, at full load they circle mid 80s. If the CPU eats 200W, there's going to be at least 20W wasted on the VRMs. Then there's the chipset power consumption. The peripheral cards power consumption. The USB devices power consumption.

Exactly. It's a complete BS. 220Watt of TDP will make it an oven for sure.

Any Vishera at 5GHz is going to be an oven. If this part is real, they couldn't likely give it a lower TDP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RX7-2nr

How can you say that when the world record clock speeds are held by AMD CPUs of the same lineage as the FX-9000? The overclocking headroom is there. It is entirely possible that someone may push this new CPU to 9ghz.

There is nothing that would indicate it's even a new CPU.

If this is a real processor, it's just the cream of the current Vishera dies. Chances are there are at least a few FX-8350s with similar or superior average clocking abilities, and that some of them have been found and pushed under extreme cooling. New records may be set with them, since most of the sorting would have been done already, but headroom is not likely to increase much, certainly not with less than extreme cooling.

Stock 8350 system idles at 87w. Running linx it loads at 281W. Looks pretty close to 200W from the CPU alone from a 125W TDP processor.

After conversion losses and taking other components into account, ~200w still seems like a high estimate. However, I will admit that part may well be exceeding it's rated TDP.

Most other FX-8350 reviews do not show the FX-8350 exceeding it's TDP, but then again, they aren't often using LinX (though many do use Prime, which should be coming pretty close), and TDP is not the same as peak power. LINPACK is probably one of those applications that falls well outside what AMD considers a useful workload.

On the other hand, his Intel figures look accurate (none of the chips he tested ever reached their TDP), so maybe AMD really is lowballing their TDP figures by a significant margin...

Still, I'm skeptical that TDP is really being exceeding by so much. Did this user give any more information as to his other settings? Not all boards, especially not all overclocking boards, strictly follow spec for things like droop or clock throttling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artikbot

Those parts are NOT at idle, get it right.

The VRMs have an efficiency of a 92-93% at most on super high end motherboards. In most cases, at full load they circle mid 80s. If the CPU eats 200W, there's going to be at least 20W wasted on the VRMs. Then there's the chipset power consumption. The peripheral cards power consumption. The USB devices power consumption.

As well as what's lost at the PSU.

281w at the wall is still a lot for a fairly barebones system, but not absolute proof of the part exceeding it's TDP.Edited by Blameless - 6/2/13 at 6:26am

The difference is he's using Linx, which seems to demand the most from FX (gets all FP and Int units chugging). FXs Furmark so to speak. Not saying it will draw that much often, but I think with OC CPUs there is an expectation that the system be capable of dealing with a completely loaded scenario.

The funniest thing about stress tests is how often they fail to show an unstable OC, I've had Furmark, LinX, P95, etc stable OCs fail after even only 10 minutes in a game that doesn't require even half of my GPUs power to max out like TF2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blameless

281w at the wall is still a lot for a fairly barebones system, but not absolute proof of the part exceeding it's TDP.

It's also considerably more than tests that had GPUs that use more power than a GTX 460 if you look at the ones I linked. (GTX 690 in one, HD7950 in another)

The funniest thing about stress tests is how often they fail to show an unstable OC, I've had Furmark, LinX, P95, etc stable OCs fail after even only 10 minutes in a game that doesn't require even half of my GPUs power to max out like TF2.

I've had it all the way around,

100% stable in Linpack, playing games, and after 3 minutes of folding, BAM, crash xD

In fact, my current overclock is like that. Stable for anything except folding

The funniest thing about stress tests is how often they fail to show an unstable OC, I've had Furmark, LinX, P95, etc stable OCs fail after even only 10 minutes in a game that doesn't require even half of my GPUs power to max out like TF2.